Don't get me wrong its ideal to have both but we are not being beaten by other nations because of our athletic ability, we are being beaten because of our technical deficiencies. The players in the national team are more than decent athletes and in an athletic sense would hold their own against many nations, but where we always let ourselves down is in technical ability.

A country like Japan is a good example. We probably have advantages in Athleticism, height, strength etc and while the differences aren't great there are differences. Its not say that the Japanese players are not great Athletes either. But on a technical sense they are better than us and will win the majority of games between the two of us if things stay the same. Technique > Athleticism and it always will be. 

But I don't regard height or even strength as characteristic of athletic superiority in football. That's why I keep writing speed and agility. We don't have superiority compared to Japan in terms of speed and agility.

I can only guess I'm not explaining my viewpoint that well (which is a worry). It's not a question of technique vs athleticism, at all.

Sure if there was a really contrived situation whereby a bunch of Brazilian futsal players who weren't all that athletic played against a bunch of AFL footballers, the futsal players would probably win comfortably.

But does that kind of situation reflect the reality of football? Hell no. International football is the best Brazilian footballers versus the best Australian footballers, for example.

I repeat it's not a question of technique versus athleticism. It's a question of which countries can draw upon the best combinations of technique plus athleticism.

Germany, France, Italy, Spain, England, Brazil, Argentina, Belgium, Japan, South Korea, most of Europe and most of Africa can realistically hope that they will be able to draw from a pool of footballers who have technique plus athleticism. Australia cannot (at this stage).

And that, my friend, is why we constantly have a situation whereby we tend to have great athletes who aren't all that good at football or decent footballers who aren't all that special athletes (compared to counterparts from those sort of countries). Not such an issue in central midfield (and by fluke we have good 'footballers' in central midfield, but elsewhere it is an issue).

I should correct my last paragraph.

The relatively smaller pool of footballers who have technique plus athleticism is one of the problems.

Also a problem are lack of player pathways, youth academies, development, football culture and so on.

But when you add all these things up, it hardly alleviates things.

@quickflick

I am putting my arguments forward in the context of the article written by the AFL journalist.
His argument is that football is missing out due to the Athletes being reaped by the AFL, which is absolute nonsense.

In regards to your below statement, I agree with you but I would always put more importance on technique.

"I repeat it's not a question of technique versus athleticism. It's a question of which countries can draw upon the best combinations of technique plus athleticism."

Neither you nor he is completely right nor wrong, imo, with all due respect.

The journalist is partially right. Undoubtedly, if many, many, many more children (especially those with the natural athleticism of Leroy Jetta, Patrick Dangerfield, Cyril Rioli, Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti, etc.) had grown up playing football rather than Aussie Rules, would Australian football have reaped the rewards? Hell yes. I've said as much repeatedly. Benjamin has said as much. It doesn't make you disloyal to football in Australia to notice this. The trick is to work out how football can turn the tide.

You're right in suggesting that if you pit very gifted footballers against very athletic fellas (who have no football skills) then technique should overcome the athleticism. But this isn't the question. It misrepresents the reality. It's a false dichotomy. The reality is that top class footballers (for most positions) have both technique and athleticism.

I think we're coming from different perspective here hence the misunderstanding. I don't think either party is wrong when looked at from both perspectives.

Quick flick coming from a perspective that we lack a greater pool of athletes due to more sports for the cream of the crop to be divided amongst.

Whilst the few others arguing that it doesn't matter how deep the athlete pool is, when technical ability is our deficiency.

It appears to be a chicken or egg first kind of argument.

In my opinion opening up more/greater pathways to A professional careers is the first step and will go along way to changing the perspective of young footballers in Australia.

With the turnover of an AFL team list each year, and 50-70 kids getting drafted each year, young footballers(and basketballers, etc) can see a lot more reward for a lot less effort heading down that path than sticking with their preferred sport.

In my opinion switching to league or union is harder really only due to the size you need to be to play those sports.

Agree entirely.

Even with most of the population behind the sport, we could still do shit (e.g. China, even India) without the right infrastructure.

Grassroots, pathways, multiple professional tiers, fewer cracks through which people fall, eventually promotion and relegation are just as important. I've never suggested otherwise. But as others seemed to pose the main question as athleticism vs technique, I will get hung up on that point- trying to reframe the question.

As I say, to do really well, we need the talent pool to be as big as possible.

Top post from you.

This whole argument is based on a false premace and perpetuated by the AFL and swallowed up those who believe the propaganda. It's impossible to say that for one AFL is the recipient of the best Athletes in Australia. You have no way of knowing that until a player has reached physical maturity. Yes it would great if more players chose football but we already have more players to choose from than AFL and in the states of NSW and QLD there are virtually no players which to choose from for the AFL.

Wow AFL have great Athletes, who are we exactly measuring them against, what benchmark. It's easy to say you are the best in the world at something when you are the only country playing the sport. I am not saying some players are not Athletic but how do you measure it. The closest I come to is when we play Ireland in International rules when the best of our Athleticism doesn't help us one iota. Let's not forget a good majority of these Irish players are made up AFL players in Australia and semi-pro Gaelic players. The odds should be heavily stacked in Australia's favourite should it not. If more countries were playing AFL I can guarantee you we wouldn't be the best nation in AFL and the question might be raised about ways we can get more Athletic players away from football, rugby and NRL so they can play AFL.

That's a really misleading example. For one thing, it's not Aussie Rules, they're playing, it's a hybrid competition. And Ireland (albeit without a professional competition, I do believe) are used to playing Gaelic football with a round ball.

And besides, some years Australia win, others Ireland win. Meaningless data.





Sorry but none of this is based on any false premise.

It is possible to say that the AFL has access to the majority of the best athletes in VIC/SA/WA/TAS/NT (i.e. most of Australia).

Going from the best times run for 20m at AFL draft camps averaged out for about 13 years up until 2012, the best AFL footballer would run 2.824 seconds average. That's bloody quick. To put that into perspective, the average for the best in the NBA draft for 22.86m was 3.028 seconds. And, usually, AFL players are drafted at a younger age than NBA players by a few years.

Then, as I say, some of Australia's best athletes in international sports came quite close to playing AFL (Patty Mills, Ben Simmonds and Lleyton Hewitt, for example). That's rather telling. While not conclusive, it would indicate there's every chance a number of people in the AFL could have gone down the path of other professional sports. This seems to be the case a lot with cricket, basketball and the type of sports for which the Olympics is the biggest competition. Olympic athletes, by and large, don't get paid anywhere near as much as AFL players, so there's a big incentive there. Then Kyle Chalmers, for example, who won the gold medal for the men's 100m freestyle in Rio has plans on playing AFL after his swimming career.

And then you just have to think about it in context. In VIC/SA/WA/TAS/NT, AFL dominates the headlines and the topic of conversation at schools, work, etc. Even in the off-season. So, what a surprise, it has traditionally had most of the best athletes in those parts of Australia.

I realise it's easy to go about having undiluted hatred of the AFL. They bring it upon themselves and they do tend to have an inferiority complex as their sport will never have any international presence. But it's more constructive to accept that the sport does actually have gifted athletes and to ask oneself how football might turn the tide going forward.

You know half the NBA players are 7 ft or ridiculously tall and they still have a similar 20m sprint time to those of AFL. You just proved his point.

No, I did not. That's the average of the quickest of each year's draft.

The quickest of each year's draft is not likely to be 7 foot tall (or if so, he'd be one hell of an athlete). The quickest of each year's draft is likely to be tall but nevertheless fast as can be.

In tennis, Andy Murray is tall at 1.9m, but is still regarded as one of the quickest and most agile on the men's tour.

Anyway, can you run 20m from a standing start in 2.84 seconds?

Murray would be a very small basketball player, the average height for NBA is 2.04m. It just isn't a great comparison in comparing speed.

I only remember doing a 40m sprint so not a clue. Well definitely not 2.84.

This measures the average of the fastest in the NBA draft each year and the average of the fastest in the AFL draft each year.

That is not the average speed of the average NBA basketballer (or the average of the AFL footballer, for that matter).

The fastest in the NBA draft each year is going to be more along the line's of Andy Murray's height. Usually around 1.9m. Point guards, that sort of thing.

Nor me, unfortunately.

Which is still far taller than the fastest AFL players like a Rioli.

How is comparing a similar game like Gaelic football to AFL meaningless data in regards to Athleticism. I mean your ready to compare Athleticism in AFL and correlate it to football. It's even more meaningless data if you want to be fair. 

Do I hate AFL. I'm not a fan but I can still appreciate they have some great Athletes playing. But the AFL and the journalist is sure drawing a long bow with the myth that the best Athletes are in AFL or that juniors are gravitating towards it. That part doesn't make sense, especially with no data or evidence to back it up. It's funny how you brought up the 20m sprint test, do you have any solid data for football, even though it's a total meaningless measurement.

How can the AFL even remotely have the best Athletes when half the country doesn't even play the sport. That's why I asked if the best Athletes are somehow born in Victoria. If you have ever been in Sydney you will find virtually no juniors playing AFL. That's a huge pool of potential best Athletes in the countries most populist state that the AFL doesn't even get a look in. It's a myth that the AFL love to trot out to pump up their tyres. 

It's also the same reason saying that we have the best AFL players in the world. It's just a ridiculous statement. Especially since no other country plays it. I know that can be tough to accept but that's the truth of it. Until we can quantify how Athletic AFL players are then you won't know eg If they played other countries who played AFL it would be a better measure. But consider that we have plenty of players from outside of Australia who are playing elite football. Does that mean AFL is a not so skillful game that a relative novice can pick up or is it because we don't have enough Athletic players playing that players from Rugby, NRL, Basketball, Gaelic football can come along and take the place of an Australian.

Mmmm, but Patrick Dangerfield is also regarded as one of the quickest and most agile in the AFL and he's 1.89m.

As I say, you can be incredibly fast and agile at that kind of height if you're a seriously talented and hard-working athlete.

The point is though that the fastest in the AFL (tall or short) are very fast. The very fastest in the NBA and tennis are also super fast and usually tend to be about the same height as Dangerfield. And then the fastest in football are also very fast and will very in height quite a bit.

Because it's not actually the sport they are paid to play or brought up playing. And they win some 'series' and lose some. It's not taken all that seriously (not compared to regular AFL). It's meaningless.


The journalist has an axe to grind but so too do a lot in the Australian football community. The AFL, traditionally, has had the best athletes (and juniors) in VIC/SA/WA/TAS/NT gravitating towards it, however much infuriating the sport may be.

Far be it from me to tell people what to think but...

The first step to addressing any problem is to acknowledge the problems existence, rather than to deny it. This is, indeed, a problem in most parts of Australia.


There is plenty of evidence. As the sport involves relatively little technique (compared to football and other stuff), they do nothing but measure these sort of things.

http://www.topendsports.com/sport/afl/testing-draft-results.htm


Sorry but this smacks of an agenda. The AFL has traditionally had access to the best athletes in VIC/SA/WA/TAS/NT. That's most of Australia. Nobody (except perhaps those actually working for the AFL, itself) is suggesting that the AFL has any influence in NSW. But that doesn't alter the fact that it has more influence than any other sport in most of the rest of the country (and, traditionally, by some margin).


My friend, your mistake is to get wound up by their pettiness. Their sport has no international presence. Australians, quite often, tend to have an inferiority complex. So that plus the AFL's sheer lack of significance outside VIC/SA/WA/TAS/NT is a recipe for those kind of ridiculous claims.

What the AFL has (or traditionally has had) is access to the best athletes in those states. Imo, the fact that Australians have tended to be among the most active people in the world and the climate is very conducive towards it, the very best athletes in certain positions in AFL are among the most athletic people you'll find in the world. Plus given the sport's focus on sports science rather than technical and tactical things, it's hardly surprising. Don't get riled by this notion. It's not as if they're the only athletes who are the best in the world. You'll find the same in the NBA, at the Olympics, in the Premier League, the Bundesliga, La Liga, in the grand slams and so on.


You confuse skill and technique. Success in Aussie Rules requires athletic skill, not technical skill. Technical skill is usually only gained through years and years of practice and usually from a young age. Aussie Rules places no great weight on technical skill, more athletic skill. Football places great weight on both (although for central midfield and central defence, athletic skill tends to have less importance).



It's not tough. We can just look at the kind of things AFL does quantify and even glimpses of them playing the sport to work it out. That plus the people who go professional (even world class) in other sports who have realistic chances of playing AFL at around 15 or 16.

The results speak for themselves.

Don't get upset by it. Try to turn the tide by working out how football can make an impact in VIC/SA/WA/TAS/NT.

Unless you enjoy watching us concede upwards of two goals each occasion we face a decent opponent.

When we get better technical players we won't be conceeding anything. It's got little to do with Athleticism, especially the ones the AFL are supposedly hoarding.

The AFL isn't hoarding anything. It just has the luxury of having reaped the rewards of dominating the sporting cultural landscape of most Australian states and territories since it started; the largest talent pool and therefore most of the best athletes in those states and territories.

If you haven't figured out that most of the best footballers in the world in the positions of striker, winger, wingback and goalkeeper have supreme athletic ability as well as technical ability and tactical awareness, you're either labouring under a hell of a misapprehension or kidding yourself.

In what way has the AFL dominated the sporting cultural landscape especially when most juniors in EVERY state are playing football and not AFL. 
That's why the claim of AFL having the best Athletes is a ridiculous claim. It's nonsense. 
Just based on pure maths and statistics the claims by the journalist are nonsense.

Just have a look at newspapers in VIC/SA/WA/TAS/NT. That indicates the dominance of the sporting landscape.

I understand things are improving and we're getting a better turn out now. These days, there are kids playing football from households which, traditionally, were pro AFL. I've heard tell that football has the highest participation rate in Australia.

Nevertheless, where I grew up in Melbourne, and even more so in rural Victoria, plus in SA, WA, NT and (I'm told) Tassie, it still seems to be more popular, seems to tend to be played by better athletes and dominates topics of conversation. Things are getting better. But there's a lot work to be done. And we're still a long way behind AFL.

Although given how tiny the polynesian population is in Australia, it's incredible that 25% to 40% of all professional league and union players in Australia are of polynesian background.

Football participation across Australia is huge and has been the leading participation sport (of the football codes) for at least 100 years.

The thing we often fail to understand in this discussion is that everyone plays football at some point in their lives these days:  under 5s and 6s, school, whatever.

The key is that the majority come from households where football is not viewed as culturally important, so dads aren't playing football with kids in backyards and parks, families aren't following A-League clubs, etc.

With opportunities to sample a wide range of sports over the first 12 years of someone's life, and with football not being overly important in a cultural sense across Australia, some kids who are capable of playing a variety of spots (and there are many, many such kids) will ultimately choose to specialise in one sport, and family culture,  infrastructure and the possibility of being a professional sportsman will all enter into the decision-making process at that sort of age.

Where to start ... being from the southern states and the media dominance the AFL has I can see it must be difficult to see beyond what the media is telling you and I guess popular discussion.

I am only going to use two things unless you want more ... but before I start some background, regional NSW, QLD & the ACT, have 92% of the population of WA, SA, NT, Tassie and regional Vic.... Sydney & Brisbane are much bigger when combined than Melbourne... next background is in the southern states 100's of hours of radio, TV cross promotions, 16 & 24 wrap amounts in newspapers.

TV rating in NSW & QLD are a basket case, no one I know talks about the AFL... so don't believe the hype about NSW & QLD coming out of the southern states.

Now with all this media, and demonising of Football in the southern states, Football is growing, and if reports coming out of the two south and south east Melbourne bids are close to the truth an area with 1.2 million folk in Melbourne prefer Football meaning the great southern fortress looks like its developing cracks... and the once impregnable AFL controlled city is losing control of a large part of Melbourne.  

The NRL rates generally better per game, Football has almost 3 times the players, Football is global, ... the charts and trends are also pointing to a change.